Portland NORML Weekly News Release (January 23, 1997)
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS
1001 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW
SUITE 1010-C
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
T 202-483-5500 * F 202-483-0057
E-MAIL NATLNORML@AOL.COM
Internet http://www.norml.org
...a weekly service for the media on news items related to Marijuana
Prohibition.
January 23, 1997
Massachusetts Introduces Regulations To Legalize Medical Marijuana
Boston, Massachusetts, January 22, 1997: The Massachusetts Department of
Health issued regulations to create an affirmative medical defense for
patients who use marijuana for a legitimate medical need. The regulations
were mandated by the passage of a law last summer (H. 2170) that
reinvigorates the state marijuana therapeutic research program and provides a
prima facie defense for individuals who are certified by the state to use
marijuana to treat glaucoma, asthma, or the nausea associated with
chemotherapy.
According to State Public Health Commissioner David Mulligan, a three doctor
panel appointed by the state will screen individual patients' applications
for certification. Certified patients will be shielded from criminal
penalties, even if they obtain marijuana through illicit channels, Mulligan
said. State physicians will not be allowed to prescribe marijuana to their
patients under the new law.
"We're trying to get certificates into the hands of people who meet the
medical criteria," said Mulligan. "Who is going to prosecute someone who has
a certificate saying they have a medical condition that requires
[marijuana?]"
The new law also mandates the Department of Health to develop a blueprint
for a state-run medical marijuana research project, which would be submitted
to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval. During the late 1970s
and early 1980s, at least six states implemented research programs allowing
seriously ill patients to obtain marijuana as a medicine from the state board
of health.
"The feds keep telling us verbally -- they have never put it in writing --
that they would supply [marijuana] for a well-designed clinical trial," said
Nancy Ridley, assistant health commissioner. "We're going to be sending
another batch of letters to the federal government to try to get them to be
more specific about what it would take to access their supply. It would be
absolutely wrong not to try."
NORML Legal Committee member Michael Cutler, Esq., sees the proposals as a
step in the right direction, but criticized the state's failure to include a
"catch-all" provision for terminal illness as well as language granting
"sufficient confidentiality" for patients and doctors. He also expressed
concern that patients would need to be certified by a state-panel of
physicians rather than by their own personal doctor. Cutler, who helped to
draft the original legislation, expects the legislature to hold public
hearings on the issue as early as next month.
For more information, please contact attorney Michael Cutler @ (617)
439-4990. For a state by state breakdown of medical marijuana laws, please
contact Allen St. Pierre or Paul Armentano of NORML @ (202) 483-5500.
Oklahoma Man Sentenced to 93 Years For Cultivating Marijuana
January 17, 1997, Tulsa, Oklahoma: An Oklahoma jury sentenced a Tulsa man
to 93 years in jail for cultivating marijuana in a 25-square-foot underground
shelter. The man was also ordered to pay $62,000 in fines.
Jurors found William Joseph Foster, 38, guilty of four marijuana felonies
and one misdemeanor despite testimony that he was growing marijuana for
personal use to alleviate the pain of rheumatoid arthritis.
"William Foster was growing and using marijuana for pain management,"
explained Michael Pearson of Oklahoma NORML, who noted that a medical
marijuana necessity defense is not accepted by Oklahoma law. "Mr. Foster has
utilized prescription drugs which he has found to be not as effective and/or
to produce undesirable side effects."
Prosecutors claimed that there existed little medical evidence to support
Foster's claim and accused him of maintaining a sophisticated marijuana
growing system capable of producing over 2,500 marijuana cigarettes.
Testimony from expert witness Ed Rosenthal, a writer-researcher specializing
in marijuana and it's cultivation, denied this claim.
Rosenthal said that Foster's basement growing area would have only yielded
12 and one-half ounces of smokable marijuana. "What we have here is ...
simple possession of marijuana," maintained Foster's attorney, Stuart W.
Southerland, Esq.
Jurors rejected this assertion, however, and sentenced Foster to serve 70
years in jail for cultivation of marijuana. He also received a two-year
sentence for possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, a 20-year term
for possessing marijuana in the presence of a child who lived in the home,
and a one-year sentence for failing to obtain a drug stamp. Foster is
planning on appealing the verdict.
"This decision was a case of overkill," summarized Pearson. "When Oklahoma
looks at 'truth in sentencing,' this will definitely be a case that will
stand out. Justice in Oklahoma just doesn't exist any more."
For more information, please contact Michael Pearson of Oklahoma NORML @
(405) 840-4367 or Attorney Stuart W. Southerland @ (918) 744-5448.
[Portland NORML adds: Submit comments and opinions to the Governor
of Oklahoma at http://www.oklaosf.state.ok.us/osfdocs/gov_mail.html.
The governor of Oklahoma's home page is at
http://www.oklaosf.state.ok.us/osfdocs/govhp.html. The good people at
Hempseed.com try to maintain links to other Oklahoma elected
officials in the "activist" section of their Web pages at
http://www.hempseed.com/hempseed/activism.html.]
Vermont Study Demonstrates Strong Support For Domestic Hemp Production
January 16, 1997, Montpelier, Vermont: More than 75 percent of Vermont
residents say that farmers should be allowed to grow industrial hemp as a
cash crop, according to the results of a University of Vermont survey.
The survey, entitled "Alternative Agricultural Strategies in Vermont: The
Case of Industrial Hemp," was part of a study commissioned by the state
legislature last year to determine the viability of hemp production in
Vermont. Of the 770 Vermonters who were contacted in the telephone survey,
402 responded.
The survey's key findings are as follows:
+ 77 percent of respondents said they supported changing the laws so farmers
could grow hemp in Vermont.
+ 72 percent said that legalizing hemp would not hurt the effectiveness of
drug education efforts.
+ 63 percent said that allowing domestic hemp cultivation would not
inevitably lead to the legalization of marijuana.
+ 55 percent said they would substitute all of their purchase of cotton
jeans with clothing made from hemp if they were of equal market price.
Often described as "marijuana's misunderstood cousin," industrial hemp is
from the same species that produces marijuana. Unlike marijuana, however,
industrial hemp has only minute amounts of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC), the psychoactive ingredient that gives marijuana its medical and
euphoric properties. Industrial hemp is currently grown legally through much
of Europe, Asia, and parts of Canada to produce a variety of products such as
textiles, paper, composites, paints, cosmetics, and animal feed.
"This survey indicates what the rapidly growing U.S. hemp market is already
telling us," said NORML Deputy Director Allen St. Pierre. "Americans want
hemp products and they want their farmers to be a part of this prospering
economic industry."
Last year, Vermont was among four states that introduced legislation to
allow for domestic hemp cultivation. NORML expects at least twice as many
states to introduce similar legislation this year. Presently, both Missouri
and Virginia have industrial hemp measures pending before the state
legislature.
For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre or Paul Armentano of
NORML @ (202) 483-5500. For information regarding the Virginia hemp bill,
please contact Eric Steenstra of Ecolution @ (703) 207-9001. For information
regarding the Missouri hemp bill, please contact Dan Viets of Missouri NORML
@ (314) 443-6866. Copies of NORML's position paper: "Can America Afford Not
To Grow This Plant?" are available upon request.
MORE THAN 10 MILLION MARIJUANA ARRESTS SINCE 1965...ANOTHER EVERY 54 SECONDS!
(Regional and other news)
* Body Count
Three of the seven felons sentenced by Multnomah County courts in the most
recent week received jail or prison terms for controlled-substance offenses,
according to the "Portland" zoned section of 'The Oregonian' (Jan. 23, 1997,
p. 7, 3M-MP-SE). That makes the body count so far this year seven out of 20,
or 35 percent. The body count might have been four out of seven except one
felon was sentenced to 30 days in jail for resisting arrest while his charge
of possessing a controlled substance was dismissed. (Yet another possible
instance of a drug offense ending up labeled as something else.) The final
tally for 1996 was 370 out of 675, or 54.81 percent.
* Multnomah County - Ground Zero In The Drug War
An interesting factoid illustrating the extreme extent to which
Portland-area public officials try to enforce marijuana prohibition appeared
in a "Letter to the Editor" of 'The Oregonian' on Jan.. 15, 1997 (p. B11).
Maggie Miller, who identified herself as a parole/probation officer with the
Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections, wrote that:
"In addition, although Multnomah County has only 20 percent of the state's
total population, we recorded 31 percent of all the state's drug crimes and
61 percent of the drug crimes involving heroin, cocaine or other narcotics."
Are Portlanders more likely to use illegal drugs than Oregonians elsewhere?
Well, no. Miller seems bent on promoting a myth that urbanites use
controlled substances more than their rural or suburban neighbors. As the
latest, 1995 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) states:
"There was little difference in rates of use in large metropolitan areas,
small metropolitan areas, and nonmetropolitan areas" ("Any Illicit Drug
Use," http://www.health.org/pubs/95hhs/any.htm).
As documented in the Aug. 29, 1996 Portland NORML Weekly News Release, the
government's own most conservative statistics show there are at least 23,772
marijuana consumers in Portland, 29,930 in Multnomah County and 150,040 in
Oregon. (http://www.pdxnorml.org/082996.html#ldt). By definition,
anytime any one of those folks buys, sells, possesses or consumes a
controlled substance, a "drug crime" has occurred. There are almost
certainly millions of "drug crimes" in Oregon every year (but only a few
thousand beds in jails and prisons).
So Multnomah County may have "recorded" 31 percent of all the state's drug
crimes, but almost certainly that reflects the unrivaled assiduousness of
Portland-area public officials in directing limited resources at marijuana
offenders.
What has been the result of years of such Draconian enforcement? The same
1995 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse says "The current illicit drug
use rate [increased to] 7.8 percent in the West ... " [from 6.6 percent the
year before, according to the 1994 NHSDA at
http://www.health.org/pubs/94hhs/patterns.htm].
Was Miller, a parole/probation officer, concerned about the misapplication
of public-safety funds, or whether Portlanders were getting anything for
their money other than worse problems and dwindling social services? Of
course not. Her job probably depends on the drug war. Her letter, titled
"Comparing officers across county lines fails to consider population
differences," "took exception to [an 'Oregonian'] Jan. 3 editorial's
implication that officers in [Multnomah] county are less competent than
their counterparts in neighboring counties ('High-cost parole')."
But Portland NORML thanks her for writing all the same.
* 'Interview - Lynn Zimmer - Drug War Truths, Drug War Lies'
Thanks to a public-school system plundered by prison-building and other
costs of the drug war, far too many Americans seem unable to think
critically about science. Marijuana prohibitionists have managed to get the
public to accept a wide variety of fearsome myths about marijuana and its
consumers. So it's always fun to get the general public to read the real
science debunking prohibitionist propaganda. People don't like to be lied
to, and a little reading turns many prohibitionists into reformers. One of
the most readable and authoritative debunkers working today is Lynn Zimmer.
The online 'High Times' of February 1997 has an excellent interview with the
sociologist, researcher, NORML board member and co-author (with Dr. John
Morgan) of "Marijuana Myths/Marijuana Facts" posted at
http://www.hightimes.com/ht/mag/9702/zimmer.html. Zimmer has published a
wealth of information debunking prohibitionist misinformation, including for
example the excellent "Exposing Marijuana Myths: A Review of the Scientific
Evidence," at http://www.pdxnorml.org/Exposing_index_1095.html. In
the 'High Times' interview, Zimmer talks about how the criminal-justice
system exacerbates the harm caused by the War on Drugs, and examines several
pseudoscientific lies about marijuana that should be finally laid to rest.
* 'US Government - No Link Between Marijuana Decrim and Increased Pot Use'
While you're learning about the difference between research and propaganda
in the February 1997 online 'High Times' (or for that matter the hard-copy
version), check out the "Normlizer" column by Paul Armentano of NORML,
posted at http://www.hightimes.com/ht/mag/9702/normliz.html.
Perhaps the most powerful argument prohibitionists have is the "slippery
slope" myth. All of prohibition rests on the assumption that regulating
black-market drugs or reducing penalties for drug offenders would lead to
more people using such drugs.
It's a powerful argument because it arouses real fears in many good people,
for good reasons. Unfortunately, there is not much evidence supporting it.
Most of the credible evidence seems to disprove it. Every major study of
drug policy has discredited it.
Until somebody in the drug policy reform movement writes a comprehensive FAQ
reviewing the evidence that dispels the "slippery slope" myth, the Armentano
column will serve well. The government's own facts flatly contradict its
prohibitionist claims.
* Massachusetts May Grow Its Own Medical Marijuana
BOSTON (UPI, Jan. 22, 1997) - Massachusetts is considering Wednesday
growing its own marijuana for medical purposes if the federal government
declines to provide a supply from its own growing fields.
Gov. William Weld says he supports proposed new state Health Department
rules allowing certain seriously ill patients to use marijuana to ease
their suffering.
He also says he has no problem with the possibility the state may grow
its own marijuana for medical purposes, if the federal government refuses
to supply the drug from its fields in Mississippi.
Weld says he wants the marijuana to come from "an official source" so
people aren't forced to buy "street marijuana" that may be laced with
other illegal substances.
The Clinton administration has threatened to prosecute doctors who
prescribe marijuana for the treatment of any illness, despite approval
by voters in California and Arizona.
The state Public Health Council is expected to act on the proposals
next week.
Under the proposed new rules, a state panel of three doctors would have
to certify any patients who wants to use the drug to alleviate their
suffering from such illnesses as glaucoma, severe asthma or the nausea
caused by radiation and chemotherapy treatments for cancer.
Weld says he would like to see that expanded to cover those suffering
from AIDS, multiple sclerosis, lupus and arthritis.
The certification would protect patients who use marijuana from
prosecution.
* McCaffrey's 'Softening' Line
On Jan. 23 Dave Fratello (104730.1000@compuserve.com) of Americans for
Medical Rights wrote:
Here's a compilation of McCaffrey's quotes on the war on doctors.
He's gotten credit for taking a "softer" line recently, as if that's going
to reduce the real fear felt by doctors. We hear reports now that California
Cannabis Buyers' Clubs are having great difficulty with even the doctors who
have regularly referred patients to them. No one will discuss marijuana with
their patients anymore.
That's why the doctor/patient lawsuit was filed last week. The medical
profession in CA and AZ needs clearer guidance about what kinds of
recommendations are not going to be punished by the feds. McCaffrey's happy
talk is no substitute for the DEA's well-articulated threats.
Check out the evolution of McCaffrey's public posturing -
McCaffrey's Hard Line Gets Softer, DEA Threats Lurk in Background
+ McCaffrey's first statement on the issue of punishing doctors was on Court
TV, on a show called "Washington Watch." Though the show was to air Nov. 1,
Reuters broke the story earlier in the week. Asked if the government might
punish physicians who authorize medical marijuana, he said: "Without
question. A physician who tries to prescribe a Schedule I drug, with or
without these referendums in California and Arizona, is subject to
prosecution under federal law - and we will uphold the law."
+ McCaffrey dodged questions on what action would be taken against doctors
during an Oct. 31 appearance on KCRW's "Which Way, LA?" - He did say,
"[M]arijuana is a Schedule I, banned drug. It will remain illegal under
federal law -- it's a congressional act -- and we will uphold the law. So
that's not really under discussion. I don't believe legitimate doctors are
going to be prescribing it."
Much later, after the Administration announced its plan (Dec. 30) and began
to get flak over the threats against doctors, McCaffrey got mellower.
+ On Friday, Jan. 10, McCaffrey told the AP in Los Angeles, "There are some
doctors, respected ones, who think smoking marijuana is beneficial. We need
to look into it. We need to respect their opinions, too."
+ McCaffrey evidently assured members of the San Francisco Medical Society
that responsible physicians would not be targets for punishment. After a
January 13 evening meeting with McCaffrey, society spokesman Steve Heilig
told the Associated Press that McCaffrey said the government "will not go
after physicians who might recommend this in the context of an established
patient, if it's not being done indiscriminately," Heilig said.
+ Echoing much of his comment on the Dec. 29 edition of CBS's "Face the
Nation," in which he tried to downplay the 'war on doctors,' McCaffrey said
in the San Diego Union-Tribune January 14: "I do not expect there to be a
problem with U.S. doctors violating the law." As in, they're feeling so
threatened they won't violate the law?
+ McCaffrey's spokesman, Don Maple, in the same Jan. 14 article, repeats a
common theme from the drug czar's office: "There is not an initiative to
target doctors... [N]obody's beefed up any enforcement agencies for the
purpose of doing that. No task forces were created."
How does all of this backtracking contrast with:
DEA Administrator Thomas Constantine, in a Dec. 23 story in The New York
Times: "I think we are going to end up with a smaller group of these
physicians than we ourselves once expected. And we are going to take very,
very serious action against them."
* Woody Harrelson Wins Kentucky Hemp Challenge
On Jan. 23, 1997, the Colorado Hemp Initiative Project
(cohip@welcomehome.org) wrote:
Today, Judge Ralph E. McClanahan handed down the following judgment:
... "After reviewing the statutes and memoranda of the parties this Court
finds that the definition of marijuana contained in KRS 218A.010 (12) is
constitutionally defective due to it's overbroad application by including
non-hallucinogenic plant parts." ... "We believe the enactment of (this
statute) is an arbitrary exercise of power by the General Assembly over the
lives and property of free men."...
For more details contact:
Burl McCoy (606) 254-6363, attorney of Woody Harrelson.
Andrew R. Graves, President
Kentucky Hemp Growers Cooperative Association, Inc.
1st (606) 259-5766 Voice Pager
2nd (606) 321-3490 Mobil
3rd (606) 293-0579 Home
The case is Commonwealth of Kentucky, 23rd Judicial District, Lee District
Court,
case no. 96-M-00161
* Two Who Receive Federal Pot Lobby Minnesota Legislature
"Pushing Pot"
'St. Paul Pioneer Press,' Jan. 21, 1997, Front Page
By Rick Shefchik, staff writer
Two of the eight patients in the United States allowed to smoke marijuana
legally want the Minnesota Legislature to legalize it for medical use.
George McMahon and Barbara Douglass smoke marijuana to fight the symptoms of
their debilitating illnesses.
The two Iowans came to St. Paul on Monday to urge doctors, patients and
state legislators to push for a law similar to those passed recently in
California and Arizona that would permit the medicinal use of marijuana.
Such a law would not guarantee pot for every patient who wanted or needed
it, of course. The United States government has repeatedly stated that it
will prosecute doctors who recommend marijuana to their patients in those
states.
In Minnesota, an attempt to pass a medical use bill died in committee
hearings in 1993 and is not scheduled to be reintroduced this legislative
session.
Yet legalization of marijuana -- for medicinal purposes or otherwise -- is
personally moot to McMahon and Douglass.
Both can light up a joint any time and anywhere they want to -- even in the
no-smoking section of your favorite restaurant. They are two of eight
patients in America who receive 300 federally grown and rolled marijuana
cigarettes each month under a program called Compassionate Care that was
begun in 1976 and suspended in 1991.
McMahon, a 46-year-old resident of Bode, Iowa (about 60 miles south of
Fairmont, Minn.), suffers from nail patella syndrome, a genetic condition
that affects major organs, disrupts the immune system and causes bone
deformities. The illness led him to 19 surgeries and, eventually, to a
wheelchair. By his count, 54 patients were approved for inclusion in the
Compassionate Care program, but only 15 ever received their marijuana before
the government pulled the plug. Those who were already receiving government
pot in 1991 continued to receive it, but only eight are still living.
"I'd be dead if I couldn't use marijuana," says McMahon, who still has
difficulty walking but no longer uses a wheelchair. "Now I'm legal. The
government tried to kill me to stop me from being that way. When they heard
I was advanced terminally ill (while his application was pending for the
Compassionate Care program), they waited two years to approve me."
McMahon's pot-acquisition routine never varies.
"I go to my doctor, get a prescription and go to a special pharmacy inside a
secure building in a secure room," he says. "I give them my prescription,
and they give me 300 cigarettes per month. Each is about as big around as a
Camel."
Douglass, 40, suffers from multiple sclerosis, a chronic disease of the
central nervous system, and claims that "Medical marijuana' has cured my
MS." The upbeat 40-year-old lives 60 miles west of McMahon in Lakeside,
Iowa, on the shores of Storm Lake. "At least, it's made me able to live with it.
"I'm a tiny little thing. I weigh 100 pounds. I, smoke a half a pound a
month, and it has made an amazing difference. You have a spasm, and the
marijuana eases that."
Douglass' MS was diagnosed in 1988, and she began receiving marijuana in
1991 after her doctor agreed to submit her application. The government
closed the program soon after she was accepted. She has regained her health
through rigorous swimming exercises and, she's convinced, the use of pot.
"I'm not in a wheelchair; I can walk. I'm not a crip, so to speak," Douglass
says. "I've almost got my wiggle back."
Does pot work?
Anecdotal evidence aside, many doctors remain unconvinced that marijuana
offers patients suffering from AIDS, cancer and MS any benefits that are not
more adequately provided by legal drugs.
Increased recreational use of marijuana in the '60s and '70s led to demands
by patients and some doctors that the medical benefits of marijuana at least
be investigated. Some believe, however, that enough research already exists.
Dr. B. J. Kennedy, Regents professor emeritus at the University of
Minnesota, and the former head of the university's oncology program,
believes marijuana has no place in medical treatment.
The studies done with marijuana did not show it was a medically effective
agent," Kennedy says. "The randomized studies comparing marijuana to other
things, indicated that marijuana did not prove to be worthwhile. It was
because of that lack of scientific evidence that the FDA has never approved it."
Kennedy and the medical users of marijuana agree on one point: the
ineffectiveness of Marinol, the pharmaceutical derivative of marijuana's
principle ingredient, THC.
"We worked very hard to get the substance into pill form," Kennedy says.
"After we had it available, the effectiveness was very poor, so the doctors
stopped using it. We have better anti-nausea drugs when we need to use
them." Douglass has tried Marinol.
"It was the worst," Douglass said. "It didn't work. The pills took you. The
marijuana you can extinguish when you feel you've had enough."
In addition to being able to control their dosage and keep that dosage down
when nausea is a problem, marijuana smoking advocates point out that there's
more to the cannabis plant than just its THC component.
Pot patients also point out the enormous expense of drugs vs. marijuana.
McMahon used to spend $1,200 to $1,500 a month on medication. The government
told him the marijuana he now receives costs them about 30 cents an ounce,
or about $5 a month.
Gordon Hanson, 47, spends $300 to $375 a month on medications to treat his
epilepsy. He used to grow his own.
Hanson lives in tiny Roosevelt, Minn., not far from the Canadian border. He
grew marijuana on his property and smoked it for his epilepsy until he was
arrested, convicted and jailed for three months in 1991. The Minnesota Court
of Appeals ruled that his claim of medical necessity was not a valid defense
in a drug case.
"If I could just grow my marijuana in my back yard, like I did in 1~89, I'd
save the state a lot money," Hanson says.
Hanson says other medications have unpleasant side effects, just the
opposite of his experience with marijuana, with which the side effects --
including increased appetite and improved mood -- were all positive.
Hanson was also having domestic abuse problems back in 1973 when a marriage
counselor recommended to him that he try marijuana. He says the marijuana
calmed him down and stopped his "Jekyll and Hyde" personality swings. He and
his wife are still married, and Hanson remains a big advocate of medical
marijuana.
"When I first heard about the success they had in California, it gave me a
lot of optimism on my own part, hoping Minnesota might also join," Hanson
says. "I thought Minnesota would be one of the first states to do it, but
now with this put-down by the federal government ...
"It seems to me there's an awful lot of neglect on the part of the doctors
and the government to seek out the benefits. There are a lot of things in
nature, and after all, marijuana is just another plant God created. God
created all things for a reason. Who are we to say our opinions are better
than the Lord himself?"
True believers
Jacki Rickert doesn't need more scientific research to convince her that
marijuana has medicinal qualities. The 45-year-old resident of Mondovi,
Wis., suffers from Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy.
Her joints dislocate and her bones break easily. She has had to have pins
inserted into her shoulders, thumbs and most of her ball and socket joints.
On the advice of friends, she began smoking marijuana for pain relief in
1988 and found it also helped with her nausea, muscle spasms, her ability to
absorb other medications and her appetite. At one point she was down to 68
pounds, but marijuana helped her gain weight.
She told her doctor, who'd been treating her for 12 years, that she wanted
to apply for the Compassionate Care program.
"He had exhausted everything in the Physicians' Desk Reference for pain and
muscle relaxants," Rickert recalls. "I had so many problems with them, from
either not being able to keep them down, or having allergic reactions to
them, or them just not working, so I asked him .about 1~e possibility of
going on cannabis therapy."
Her physician, Dr. William Wright, realized the situation was critical;
Rickert describes her appearance at the time as "a walking skeleton, like
someone who had just walked out of a concentration camp."
Wright spent six months researching the issue in contemporary publishing as
well as old medical journals -- "It wasn't something he took lightly,"
Rickert says -- and finally agreed that he would not be living up to his
Hippocratic oath if he did not try to obtain the substance that Rickert told
him worked for her.
After completing mountains of paperwork, Rickert filed her application to
the Compassionate Care program in May 1990. She received her approval in
December 1990. Her doctor began submitting the proper prescription forms,
and Rickert waited to receive her marijuana. It never came.
She read in a newspaper that the government was claiming it had run out of
marijuana, but a federal official finally admitted to Rickert's daughter
that they had more than adequate supplies.
Then she heard the program was on hold because the government was being
overrun with applications for medicinal marijuana from AIDS patients.
When the program was officially suspended in June 1991, Rickert was told
only patients already receiving marijuana would continue to receive it.
She'd never received a single joint. For her, she was told, there was Marinol.
She now relies on people she calls her "cannabis angels" who anonymously
drop off small amounts of pot at her house.
A plea to Clinton
Rickert and her daughter are determined to pursue her cause, however, and in
spring 1992 they had a chance to meet presidential candidate Bill Clinton as
he campaigned for the Wisconsin primary.
Rickert recalls speaking with candidate Clinton for nearly eight minutes in
the rain at the steps of his campaign bus, and when she was through telling
him that a hold had been put on her promised prescription, he seemed very
concerned.
"He said, 'Why, that's just terrible. If elected, I will make sure that this
is made right,'" Rickert says.
"I said, 'Sir, please don't say it if you don't mean it. I don't think I
could handle having another bubble broken.'
"He shook hands with me and put his hand on my daughter and just smiled,"
Rickert says. "And I believed him. He had the same look of sincerity the day
he took the oath, and that day the tragedy happened in Oklahoma City. So I
don't understand what happened between then and now."
Between then and now, political reality set in. The administration's current
position is the same as that under President Bush: Allowing marijuana to be
used for medical reasons undermines the federal government's tough-on-drugs
message. Clinton's only public pronouncements on the issue have been to
support his drug czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, in his vow to prosecute doctors
who prescribe pot.
The government's role
Even some doctors who aren't convinced of marijuana's medical effectiveness
have difficulty understanding the government's hard-line attitude.
Dr. Steve Miles of the University of Minnesota's Center for Biomedical
Ethics works with terminally ill patients. He's known patients who've used
marijuana. He thinks the government needs to loosen its anti-pot attitude.
"Though I am not a proponent of marijuana for use in terminally ill
patients, I don't understand why, given that it's been on the table as a
possible therapy for 30 years, we don't know the answer," Miles says. "That
strikes me as a form of censorship of the research enterprise. We should
know the answer."
Like Kennedy, Miles believes the currently available anti-nausea drugs work
better than marijuana, but he can't understand why marijuana is so stigmatized.
"I am struck by the irony of a society that seems to be on the verge of
authorizing physician-assisted suicide and saying the same class of patients
couldn't choose to use marijuana."
For George McMahon, suicide is the only alternative to marijuana.
"I was in terrible pain," McMahon says of his pro-pot condition. "I would
not have gone on like that. That isn't worth it."
Kennedy says the current surge in interest over medicinal marijuana can be
attributed to passing fad.
"You're listening to patients who would prefer to have something like that
rather than be appropriately treated with other drugs," Kennedy says.
Not so, according to those who say they depend on marijuana for relief.
McMahon says he's not looking for an excuse to get high.
"I'm in good enough condition to talk and have a fairly decent conversation
today, and I probably am very high, but to me that's just feeling slightly
less well than I felt when I was healthy," McMahon says.
"I wasn't a pot smoker," Douglass says. "I don't get high. A cancer patient
doesn't get high on pills. I appreciate that it helps my disease, but I
don't like being a pot smoker.
"I feel anger towards people who smoke it without a reason. It's not cool.
It's wrong. I say, why can't somebody else take this damn pot, and I'll take
their health in trade in two seconds."
[photo captions:]
George McMahon's tin of legal marijuana arrives monthly with 300 cigarettes
in each package.
Barbara Douglass, of Lakeside, Iowa, smokes a marijuana cigarette at the
Kelly Inn in St. Paul before the start of a seminar on the medical uses of
marijuana. She has multiple sclerosis and smokes about 10 joints a day to
ease her chronic pain.
* Trial Date Set For Licensed Arizona Cannabis Seller
A trial date of January 27, 1997, has been set in the case of State of
Arizona vs. Richard M. Davis. The trial is to be held in Maricopa County
Superior Court, at Mesa, Arizona, before Judge Brian Ishikawa. Davis was
arrested for selling cannabis on January 27, 1996, at Superbowl XXX, in
Tempe, Arizona. Charges against Mr. Davis include three felony counts of
sales of cannabis and one felony count of possession for sale of cannabis.
The Arizona Department of Revenue issues a Cannabis Dealer's License and
Cannabis Tax Stamps as a part of the Luxury Tax Codes (See
http://www.amug.org/~az4norml/). Some twenty states have Cannabis tax stamp
laws in the U.S., but only Arizona issues a Dealer's License, which has been
in the Arizona law since 1983. The prosecutor, David Flader, has moved to
suppress the dealer's license and character witnesses in the case. No
rulings have been made on these motions.
Curator of the U.S.A. Hemp Museum, Mr. Davis came to Arizona after Judge
John R. Barclay of the Northwest Phoenix District Court, dismissed charges
against Peter Banker Wilson for possession of cannabis, because Wilson was
in possession of an Arizona Cannabis Dealer's license and had paid his
taxes. Mr. Wilson's case is on appeal.
Mr. Davis is being represented by Phoenix attorney Michael Walz, who handled
the Peter Wilson case before Judge Barclay. Mr. Walz can be reached at (602)
254-8861. Richard M. Davis can be contacted at (310) 442-9073.
* US Prison Population Grew 4.4 Percent Last Year, To 1,630,940
"Growth in Prison Population Declines"
'The New York Times,' Jan. 20, 1997
By Fox Butterfield
The rapid growth in the number of people in the nation's jails and prisons
slowed last year for the first time in a decade, according to a study
released Sunday by the Justice Department, reflecting at least in part a
decline in the crime rate over the past five years.
At the end of June 1996, there were 1,630,940 people in federal and state
prisons and local jails, an increase of 4.4 percent over the previous year,
compared with an average annual growth rate of 7.8 percent in the last
decade, the study found.
The growth rate slowed most noticeably in city and county jails, rising only
2.3 percent last year after increasing by an average of 6.9 percent over the
previous decade. Inmates sentenced to jail usually are serving a term of a
year or less.
The slowing in the overall growth rate "is good news; it could be an early
reflection in the incarceration rate of the drop in crime over the last five
years," said Alfred Blumstein, a professor of criminology at Carnegie-Mellon
University.
But Blumstein and some other experts tempered their enthusiasm, noting that
a slower growth rate in one year could be a random fluctuation. It will take
another few years to confirm whether this is a real trend, Blumstein said,
pointing out that the slowdown was not dramatic and that the incarceration
rate still grew last year despite the five-year drop in the crime rate.
In fact, Franklin Zimring, the director of the Earl Warren Legal Institute
of the University of California at Berkeley, suggested that because the
incarceration rate has continued to increase even as crime has fallen, the
number of people in prison "tells us more about our feelings about crime and
criminals" and about changes in sentencing laws than about the actual crime
rate.
The total number of people in jails and prisons doubled over the last decade
and tripled over the last 20 years as politicians pushed for tougher
sentencing laws and for building more prisons in response to mounting public
fears about violent crime. The national incarceration rate was 615 inmates
per 100,000 Americans last year, up from 313 per 100,000 in 1985.
One reason it is difficult to calculate precisely why the incarceration rate
goes up or down is that there is enormous variation in prison populations
among states and regions. The new study found, for example, that the
District of Columbia had the highest number of prisoners per capita, 1,444
per 100,000 residents, followed by Texas with 659, Louisiana with 611 and
Oklahoma with 580. But states in the northern Midwest and northern New
England tend to have much lower rates. North Dakota had 90 per 100,000,
followed by Minnesota with 108 and Maine with 112.
The South had the highest imprisonment rate with an average of 487 prisoners
per 100,000 people, and the Northeast had the lowest, with 306.
An important factor in explaining why the prison population has continued to
grow, while the crime rate began to decline in 1992, experts say, is that
the crime which has led to the largest increase in incarceration, the sale
and possession of drugs, is not counted in the FBI's crime index. Over the
last 10 years, Blumstein estimated, drug offenders accounted for about half
the growth in the prison population.
The crime index tracks four violent crimes (murder, aggravated assault,
robbery and rape) and four property crimes (burglary, auto theft, arson and
larceny, or minor thefts like like shoplifting). Murder has dropped the
fastest of the crimes included in the index, though the murders make up only
a very small part of the total number of crimes.
Another reason the number of prison inmates has continued to increase,
despite the decline in serious and violent crimes, is that it often takes a
year or longer for offenders to be tried and sentenced to prison.
It is unclear whether the slower growth in the prison population could be
interpreted as a sign that tougher sentencing laws are successful. While
experts agree that building more prisons may reduce crime by removing some
career criminals from the streets, they have long argued about whether the
threat of harsher sentences actually deters criminals.
Zimring said he is skeptical about a deterrent effect because the prison
population has tripled in 20 years while the crime rate has oscillated in a
narrow range.
But Steven Levitt, an economist at Harvard University who studies the
effectiveness of prisons and police, said "the underlying amount of crime
would have grown faster had we not locked so many people up."
To measure the effectiveness of imprisonment in reducing crimes, Levitt has
studied the results of successful prisoner lawsuits to reduce overcrowding.
In 12 states where such suits resulted in a judge's decision to reduce
overcrowding, he said, the growth rate of those states' prison population
was 12 percent slower than that of the nation over the next three years,
while the violent crime rate in those states exceeded the national average
by about 10 percent. Similarly, the property crime rate in those 12 states
surpassed the national average by about 6 percent in the three years after
the lawsuits.
Although Levitt acknowledged that using prisons to fight crime is costly in
both human and dollar terms, he said the new figures showing slower growth
in the incarceration rate "are a very clear indication" of the nationwide
drop in crime since 1992. "I would not be surprised over the next five years
to see more falling crime rates accompanied by continuing small increases in
the prison population," he said.
"It is conceivable that we have gotten over the hump, or cleared the peak of
the fight against crime," Levitt said.
The new report released Sunday was written by Darrell Gilliard and Allen J.
Beck of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the statistical arm of the Justice
Department.
* 'China War On Drugs Nets 110,000 Criminals In 1996'
BEIJING (Reuter, Jan. 17, 1997) - Chinese police arrested more than 110,000
people for drugs-related crimes and solved more than 87,000 narcotics cases
in 1996, the Xinhua news agency said on Friday.
Police seized more than four tonnes of heroin, more than 1.7 tonnes of
opium and more than one tonne of amphetamines, or ``ice,'' last year,
Xinhua quoted officials at a national conference on banned drugs as saying.
``There is an international flood of drugs, the numbers of domestic drug
users are growing daily, and drugs pose a serious threat to our country,''
Xinhua quoted the conference as concluding.
However, drugs crimes had soared, with China busting 87,000 drugs-related
cases in 1996 compared with 57,500 the year before, the Xinhua figures
showed. Police arrested 110,000 people last year, up from 73,700 offenders
in 1995.
In 1995, authorities confiscated nearly 2.4 tonnes of heroin and 1.1 tonnes
of opium.
The southwestern provinces of Yunnan, Sichuan and Guangxi, Guangdong and
Hunan in the south, and Gansu in the north -- all hotbeds of drug activity
-- had launched special wars on drugs, Xinhua said.
The conference called for strict punishment of those convicted of drugs
crimes, which carry the death penalty, and urged citizens to be more aware
of drugs, Xinhua said.
China often executes drug dealers at public rallies and forces addicts into
harsh military-style rehabilitation camps.
Drug abuse, once nearly wiped out under the stern puritan rule of Mao
Zedong, has made a comeback in China following economic reforms that have
loosened the central government's control over society.
Drug addiction in China had soared recently, with the latest figures
showing the number of registered addicts jumping by at least 37 percent in
1995.
Chinese drug experts have said the total number of addicts could be as high
as one million, with most now favouring heroin over opium, once China's
traditional narcotic of choice.
Cartels operating from the Golden Triangle where Burma, Laos and Thailand
meet have increasingly used China as a transit route for drug shipments to
Hong Kong and on to the West.
* 'Salem-Keizer School Board Allows Canine Drug Searches'
[Due to the ignorance and bias of Oregon mass media, local news is often
best perceived in light of national news, as the ensuing articles suggest.
According to the Jan. 19, 1997 'Sunday Oregonian':]
SALEM - Drug-sniffing dogs will be allowed to conduct random, unannounced
searches at Salem-Keizer schools, the school board has decided.
Although the decision allows searches at all schools, they are not expected
to take place at elementary schools unless a need arises. Canine searches
will take place about once a year at middle and high schools.
Students who are found with illegal or unsafe materials will be reported to
authorities and subjected to the school's discipline policy.
Both school property and students' property may be searched. Lockers and
desks are considered school property, and backpacks, purses, cars and
clothes are personal property (p. D4).
[End quote. Now read these articles from the 'Examiner,' 'Washington Post'
and 'Playboy']
"Youth Outlook," 'San Francisco Examiner,' Jan. 21, 1997
Prozac for teens: Use or abuse?
By Allyce Bess
See them everywhere: well educated, stressed-out Ivy League-bound preppies
on drugs. The drug of choice isn't cocaine, marijuana, speed or heroin ("No
way! I'd be disinherited!"). It's Prozac.
Close to half of the 15- to 18-year olds I know are on Prozac. Half! Their
parents will do anything to get their kids to achieve, behave, clean their
rooms - whatever - including supplying them with the latest in
personality-altering drugs. Instead of questioning the purpose of what they
once believed was their most trivial homework, now they just do it.
At their best, the children of Prozac are living bland supercharged,
efficient ants. At their worst, they are passive, television-addicted,
video watching people whose conversational skills are limited to "Gee, I
really like your outfit." Surprisingly, many of the kids (in their new
passionless state) actually say that they are grateful to be on Prozac, and
believe that the drug makes them feel more "balanced."
But is Prozac really helping them, or is it just fitting them into a certain
mold while masking their real problems? Perhaps John is getting Cs in
school because that is the only way he can get attention from his parents.
Maybe Jane is always unhappy and tearful because the highly competitive,
academic environment she's in makes her feel worthless. Many of these
children (and teenagers are children) are led to believe that there is
something inherently wrong with them; that they are defective, that they
are embarrassments. But these kids aren't chemically imbalanced, they're
just human.
Many of the kids I know on Prozac are (were?) sensitive, inquisitive,
critically minded individuals. Let's take a fictional, but representative
example. Kate had always been quite witty. Although the comments she made
about people sometimes bordered on the snide, somebody had to say them. I
enjoyed her wry sense of humor and her acidic social commentary. But since
she started taking Prozac, she has slipped into an infuriatingly passive
state. She doesn't write as much as she used to, and her behavior has become
much more predictable.
Some people say that Kate is a lot easier to get along with now. Her parents
and teachers also like Prozac. Kate better than the old version, but Prozac
has essentially "normalized" a feisty and unique personality. Is temporary
relief from the normal anxieties of growing up really worth the loss of
individuality?
My friend Lee is not mentally imbalanced; she is profoundly sensitive. But
she was on Prozac as well. She told me that Prozac made her feel less
defensive. Comments that she previously interpreted as critical and rude no
longer bothered her: "I realized that some people just have their own
problems, worse than mine." It makes me sad to think that it took a
prescription for Prozac for Lee to become less sensitive, rather than
talking these issues through with friends or family, or a counselor.
After Tim started taking Prozac, it was difficult to get him talk about
anything. When I asked him about the effect the drug had on him, he said,
"Instead of thinking of all the ways to describe a problem, you jump to the
solution." But isn't something valuable lost in the process? What about the
idea of working through your problems by talking about them?
Prozac may be great for adults with chemical imbalances, but I think that
giving it to kids who aren't doing well in school, or who don't get along
with their parents, is child abuse. A society is in danger when its
inhabitants are willing to presumptively alter their biochemical makeup just
to feel more "balanced." It's also a sad commentary on parenting when adults
give their children drugs so they will be less of a nuisance.
Maybe kids do feel more relaxed on Prozac, but it certainly doesn't solve
their problems. If Prozac is used to avoid life's important issues, it will
likely create a race of grinning, oblivious teenagers who turn into
grinning, oblivious adults without personal opinions or convictions. There
is nothing wrong with a healthy attitude problem. It is the key to an
adolescent's growth and individuality and can lead to wonderful creative
endeavors. I hate seeing so many unique personalities lobotomized by Prozac.
Allyce Bess is on the staff of YO! (Youth Outlook), a newspaper by and about
Bay Area teens produced by Pacific News Service.
"A 4th Amendment Lesson -- the Teacher Gets Fired"
'The Washington Post,' Jan. 18, 1997, p. A23
By Nat Hentoff
It was a SWAT team moving in on students in Windsor Forest High School in
Savannah, Ga. As described by Bill Osinski last year in the Atlanta
Constitution, "Without warning, teams of armed county and school system
officers would periodically come into the schools, order everyone into the
hallways, use dogs to sniff the students' book bags and purses, and scan the
students' bodies with metal detectors." The students are detained in their
classrooms for two to three hours.
There is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to target any particular
student. All of them are presumed guilty of possessing drugs or weapons
unless exonerated by a drug dog.
Sherry Hearn, a teacher at Windsor Forest High School, had complained about
these random raids to the principal, to the school board and to cops she
felt were unduly rough with students during the searches.
At a November 1995 lockdown, as it's called, one of her students asked Hearn
why she was so upset. "Because I teach the Constitution," she said. She had
been doing that for 27 years, had been named Teacher of the Year in Chatham
County in April 1994, and has many admirers among her students, past and
present -- some of whom she has turned away from drugs.
When she spoke caustically about the lockdown, she was overheard by a police
officer, who reported her to the principal, adding that because of her
"attitude" problem, she might have to be detained or restrained during
future surprise raids. During a subsequent random raid, Hearn's son was the
only student out of 1,500 to be individually searched.
There was another lockdown in April 1996, and the industrious police also
searched the cars in the parking lot. One of them was Sherry Hearn's
venerable Oldsmobile. She had left the doors unlocked and the windows open.
A drug dog found a partial hand-rolled marijuana cigarette in the car.
Hearn had absolutely no record of drug use and had no idea how that
incriminating controlled substance had come into her car. The search,
conducted without a warrant, was also in direct violation of the board's
policy, which requires that faculty members give consent before their cars
are searched. Her car had a large white faculty identification card on the
dashboard.
The Board of Education suspended Hearn and ordered her to take a
"supervised" drug test -- or lose her job. Although three years short of
retirement, she refused. "How could I face my students? To do what I
genuinely believe to be an unconstitutional act out of fear was a kind of
public shaming I could not face."
Furthermore, the original command to be drug tested turned out to be
unconstitutional because after she had been read her Miranda rights,
including the right to consult a law yer and the right not to incriminate
herself without getting a lawyer's advice, she was told that the test --
which might incriminate her -- had to be taken within two hours. She wasn't
able to reach her lawyer within that period to get his advice, so her
Miranda rights, she felt, had been violated.
The day after the raid, at the strong advice of her attorney, Hearn
reluctantly agreed to take a drug test because he said it would provide
medical evidence. Hearn's test showed no drug use. The school's
superintendent, Patrick Russo, did not even ask to see the results because
she hadn't taken the first test.
Hearn was fired for insubordination by Superintendent Russo, although he had
the options of reprimanding or suspending her. She was removed from her
students, Russo told me, because she failed to "uphold the integrity of the
drug testing policy." He added graciously that she was "a wonderful
teacher." No action was taken against the officers who searched her car in
violation of the school district's drug testing policy.
Sherry Hearn's appeal to her local school board has been denied on the
grounds of insubordination. And the Atlanta Constitution states: "This is
not about drugs. This is about the trampling of fundamental freedoms
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution." (She also has the support of National
Teacher Magazine.)
The Georgia State Board of Education has rejected Hearn's appeal, also on
the grounds of insubordination. Her case now moves into U.S. District Court,
where she will argue that her Fourth Amendment rights, among others, have
been violated -- along with her due process rights. She has not been able to
find a full-time teaching job because, she tells me, "most public systems
are fearful of anyone involved in a lawsuit."
Sherry Hearn was recently honored by the Georgia Civil Liberties Union. She
was very pleased, but would be more pleased to go back to everyday teaching
and be able to get kids to discover their rights and liberties under the
Constitution.
- Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the
rest of the Bill of Rights.
"The War On Our Children"
by Arnold Trebach & Scott Ehlers
'Playboy,' Forum, February 1997
Once again, politicians have decided to blame children for many of society's
problems. President Clinton wants municipalities to adopt curfews,
threatening to place millions of law-abiding youth under virtual house
arrest. Representative Bill McCollum (R.-Fla.) and Senator Orrin Hatch
(R.-Utah) introduced legislation in the last session of Congress that would
largely end the requirement of separating juvenile offenders from adult
offenders. States across the country are making it easier to prosecute and
punish juveniles as adults.
In the midst of all this fear about the harm caused by America's children,
one does not easily picture Jennifer Budak as an enemy of society.
The 15-year-old freshman at River Valley High School in Three Oaks, Michigan
does not smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol or use illegal drugs. She has never
been a discipline problem and has been on the honor roll since the fourth grade.
In addition to being a model student, Budak has a hobby of collecting "weird
pens." In December 1995, she was in Chicago and bought a pen for her
collection-a pen that had thewords REAL POT SEEDS and then the word STERILE
written on its side. Encased within were unusable and therefore-under
Michigan law-legal seeds.
When she took the pen to school in January and loaned it to a friend, she
never imagined that she might be making one of the biggest mistakes of her
life. Her friend was caught with the pen in gym class, and Budak was told
she could face a 45day suspension.
River Valley High School has a "zero-tolerance" drug policy. The school
handbook notes that the use, possession, sale or distribution of drugs,
including alcohol and look-alike drugs, on school property will result in:
(1) a 45-school-day suspension without makeup privileges, (2) required
assessment for drug dependency at a certified clinic; and (3) required
attendance at a minimum of four sessions with a drug abuse counselor.
How does this punishment compare with those meted out for other crimes?
Physically assaulting someone or attempting to burn down the school will
result in a suspension of up to ten days. Theft or fighting will earn a one-
to three-day suspension. Extortion, vandalism and forgery are also minor
offenses compared with drug or alcohol possession.
In Jennifer Budak's case, drug use was not an issue. Principal David Zech
had to decide whether Budak possessed a drug or a look-alike drug, terms
that were not defined in the school handbook. In Zech's mind, if Jennifer's
pen contained marijuana seeds even sterile ones-then she possessed a drug
and would have to be disciplined.
Jennifer was forced to serve the 45 day suspension. She received zeros for
every day of school missed and is not allowed to make up the work. Her grade
point average, her morale and possibly her college career have suffered
irreparable harm.
Unfortunately, Budak's story is not an isolated one. The war on drugs has
resulted in increasingly punitive sanctions for youth. Police tactics are
being employed in schools, tactics that include the use of students and
undercover police officers as informants, mass searches without suspicion,
random urine testing and harsh criticism of students and faculty who speak
out against these activities.
In May, The Atlanta Constitution featured a story on Operation Free Zone,
developed by the sheriff's department in Fayette County, Georgia. The
program paid students a $20 reward to turn in fellow students suspected of
using or dealing drugs. While many students happily agreed to become paid
informants-the police received 224 tips-others in the community didn't think
it was such a good idea. Teresa Nelson, director of the American Civil
Liberties Union of Georgia, sarcastically noted, "I think it's great to
teach our children to be snitches. That's what they did in Nazi Germany."
Police pay students to inform on one another, while undercover narcotics
officers prowl America's schools. In Milwaukee's suburban West Allis Hale
High School, a police officer posed as a student in a two- month undercover
drug probe that resulted in the arrests of 16 students and nine nonstudents.
The tiny amount of drugs involved (in one case, one twelfth of an ounce of
marijuana) suggests overkill-students were parceling out a stash, not
actively recruiting new users. Lance Wallace, facing a fine of $500 to
$25,000 and up to three years in prison, claims entrapment. "Not one of the
people busted was a dealer," he says.
According to Wallace, the officer targeted suspected users and turned them
into dealers by encouraging them to sell him small quantities of marijuana.
The undercover agent, known as Clint Carson, also drank with underage
students and once drove a car while intoxicated. At one of the high school
parties, it was alleged, "Clint" was begging people for weed. Chad Radtke, a
student at Hale and one of Wallace's friends, was approached by Clint. "He
came up to me," Radtke says, "sat next to me and asked, 'Where can you get
some bud around here?"'
While West Allis prefers stealth attacks, the police in Savannah, Georgia
are more overt. At Windsor Forest High School and other Chatham County
schools, the authorities conduct lockdown searches. Students must stay in
their classrooms for two to four hours while teams of armed county officers,
school officials and dogs search common areas and classrooms. Authorities
herd the students into the halls, where they are scanned with metal
detectors, while dogs sniff their book bags and purses in the classrooms.
One person was willing to speak up for the students-Chatham County's 1994
Teacher of the Year, Sherry Hearn. She has openly opposed the searches since
they were instituted in 1993, describing them as "degrading, demeaning and
humiliating." She added, "They produced a lot of anger in the students, and
they did not help create an atmosphere conducive to learning respect for
authority. Sometimes, the officers were disrespectful and rude; the students
were treated like criminals, with no evidence that they'd done anything
wrong." The school administration and campus police did not take her
objections lightly.
During a February 1996 lockdown, police singled out Hearn's son-one of 1500
students-for an individual search. And on April 4, the police allegedly
found a small piece of a marijuana joint in Hearn's car, which was in the
school parking lot with its windows down and the doors unlocked. The search
violated school board policy, but the fun was just beginning. The
administration ordered Hearn to report for a urine test within two hours.
She refused and spent the day trying to secure legal representation. Despite
a negative test the next day, she was suspended. The school board then
upheld Superintendent Patrick Russo's recommendation that Hearn be fired.
Sadly, the dragnet searches that Sherry Hearn opposed might have been ruled
unconstitutional years ago were it not for a Supreme Court that has time and
again rubber-stamped drug war tactics used to target the young. The court
has consistently upheld the power of school authorities to curb students'
freedoms in an effort to save them from drugs.
As far back as May 26, 1981, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case of
Diane "Doe," a girl who attended an Indiana school where officials conducted
a search. The previous spring, 16 teams of police, citizens and dogs had
conducted a raid during which the dogs sniffed every one of the 2780
children involved. School officials ordered a few of the students, including
Diane, to strip nude for a more intrusive search. The parents of Diane "Doe"
were so outraged that they sued and received a cash settlement out of court.
They persisted with the suit on appeal because they wanted the dragnet
searches of innocent children declared unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, seemingly on technical
grounds. Justice William Brennan, dismayed at the inaction of his
colleagues, wrote a sharp dissent from the brief order denying the appeal on
May 26, 1981.
Justice Brennan's dissent in Doe vs. Renfrow declared: "We do not know what
class [Diane] was attending when the police and dogs burst in, but the
lesson the school authorities taught her that day will undoubtedly make a
greater impression than the one her teacher hoped to convey." The justice
wisely stated that he would have granted the appeal to teach Diane and other
students a different lesson, that "before police and local officials are
permitted to conduct dog-assisted dragnet inspections of public school
students, they must obtain a warrant based upon sufficient particularized
evidence to establish probable cause to believe a crime has been or is being
committed. Schools cannot expect their students to learn the lessons of good
citizenship when the school authorities themselves disregard the fundamental
principles underpinning our constitutional freedoms."
Justice Brennan saw that everything happening in school becomes part of the
educational process. The strip search of Diane, the lockdown searches at
Windsor Forest High School and the expulsion of Jennifer Budak form a new
course-Draconian Drug Education 101.
The Court furthered this alternative curriculum with its June 1995 decision
that upheld mandatory random urinalyses of student athletes.
Several years earlier officials of the Vernonia, Oregon School District had
become convinced that the cause defiance and disruption among students was
drug use. Officials claimed that large numbers of students, including
athletes, were in a state of rebellion. The physical education department
thought drug use posed a special threat because it increased the risk of
sports injuries. In response, administrators demanded that all athletes
consent to the random urinalysis policy.
Seventh grader James Acton objected to the testing and was told he could not
play football when he and his parents refused to sign the consent form
Acton, a top student never suspected of using drugs, based his objection to
Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches.
The Supreme Court, however, gave what amounted to its first constitutional
blessing to the broad student search policy. The decision opened the door to
the possibility that all 45 million American public school children may
someday be required to undergo random urinalyses in the presence of
government officials in order to receive other school privileges, such as
scholarships or even an education.
An appellate court judge who had agreed with the Acton family's position
stated that "children are compelled to attend school, but nothing suggests
they lose their right to privacy in their excretory functions when they do so."
In her dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recognized the danger in the
majority's opinion, which failed to acknowledge that "history and precedent
establish that individualized suspicion is usually required under the Fourth
Amendment." Responding to the argument that the Fourth Amendment is more
lenient with respect to school searches, she wrote that "intrusive, blanket
searches of schoolchildren, most of whom are innocent, for evidence of
serious wrongdoing are not part of any traditional school function of which
I am aware. Indeed, many schools, like many parents, prefer to trust their
children unless given reason to do otherwise. As James Acton's father said
on the witness stand, suspicionless testing 'sends a message to children who
are trying to be responsible citizens . . . that they have to prove they're
innocent. I think that sets a bad tone for citizenship.'"
Just two months after the Acton decision, school board members in Indiana
were already discussing how they could take it one step further. On August
14, 1995 school board president Steve Musselman suggested that Hamilton
Southeastern High School, in Fishers, Indiana, begin a forced drug testing
program for students who wanted to use the school parking lot.
"If the rationale for randomly testing athletes is because of safety, the
school has the ability to control who drives," said school attorney Brad Cook.
Although Hamilton Southeastern decided not to institute the novel drug
testing policy, officials at nearby Noblesville High School implemented a
friendlier, volunteer system of mass random urinalyses of its students.
Officials there decided that they would give students an incentive to submit
urine samples, and the results would be revealed only to the students'
parents. Incentives included off-campus lunch privileges and a chance to win
gift certificates, a limousine ride to Indianapolis or a trip to Florida. Of
the 700 to 800 students tested in the 1995- 1996 school year, about 30
tested positive.
It is exactly this type of incentive program that Rachel Ehrenfeld
recommended in Drug Intolerance Policy, published by the Free Congress
Foundation in early 1996:
"Adolescents should be encouraged to take a pledge to remain drug-free. They
should agree to random drug testing in return for a card that could be used
to obtain discounts on tuition, school supplies, clothing, electronic gear,
entertainment, concerts, food, etc. These discounts should be provided by
the school system, stores, theaters and restaurants. Random testing would
follow the old strategic arms limitation treaty concept: Trust, but verify."
Ehrenfeld's program would encourage children to sell valuable rights for
material trinkets. Again, we should ask what this teaches our children.
These developments should disturb anyone who thinks of America as a free
society. Policies that treat students as enemies in the war on drugs are
socially damaging for several reasons: (1)These children suffer indignities,
invasions of privacy and restrictions of their constitutional rights. (2) We
are indoctrinating several generations of children with the belief that
venerable constitutional guarantees of privacy may be abrogated by the needs
of drug control. (3) As these students, now inoculated with an intolerant
attitude, take power, invasions of privacy will become more widely
implemented because they will be seen as prime American values. (4) Legal
decisions upholding invasions of students' rights eventually diminish the
rights of everyone-and weaken the foundation of our democratic society.
We can approach the issue of youth drug use with tolerance and understanding
or with intolerance and repression. This nation has chosen the latter, less
noble path. Zero tolerance means total intolerance-and we must ask ourselves
how that awful idea became part of our democratic lexicon. An essential task
is to lay out the path to tolerance and understanding, which is closer to
the more admirable traditions of American society.
We must create school drug policies that treat students with compassion and
common sense, especially those who actually have drug problems. At the same
time, we can't forget the traumatic impact these rigid policies often have
on students far removed from the drug scene.
We must keep in mind that we have had these bouts of blame-the-youth
hysteria many times before. It might help our thinking if we were to
approach the issue of youth drug use with a different paradigm: respect for
the opinions of adolescents and for their challenges to existing institutions.
We are in danger of producing generations of leaders who are either harshly
intolerant of any deviations from the norm or viciously opposed to all
institutions and values that preceded them. Drug education and school
discipline should seek ultimately to produce well-balanced adults who can
function with a sense of moderation and rationality. Such sensibly humane
results cannot be expected from the system that imposed a 45-day suspension
on Jennifer Budak for innocently bringing sterile pot seeds to school.
Arnold Trebach is a professor at American University and editor in chief of
"The Drug Policy Letter," a quarterly publication of the Drug Policy
Foundation in Washington, D.C. Scott Ehlers is associate editor.
* 'Corruption In US Counter Narcotics'
On Jan. 19, 1997, Allen D. Montgomery (AllenMontg@aol.com) wrote:
As a Sergeant in the United States Air Force, I was stationed at the
Caribbean Regional Operations Center, a Joint Service unit in Key West that
is involved in counter narcotics. In 1991, I concluded that an Air Force
Major named Don Anderson was involved in drug related espionage. I tried to
do something about it, and ended up getting kicked out for psychiatric
reasons. Check out my Web page:
http://members.aol.com/AllenMontg/drugspy.html
* 'Why AIDS Doctors May Face Prison - Just Say Reno'
The Scoop, circa Jan. 19, 1997
[Hear this in RealAudio at http://www.goodthink.com/harris/bh.aids.html]
By Bob Harris
Last November, voters in California and Arizona approved the use of
marijuana for medical reasons.
Because it reduces intraocular pressure, marijuana wails on glaucoma, and
since it creates major munchies (say... Clinton jogs every day and still
never loses weight) it's also useful in treating life-threatening anorexia,
chemotherapy-induced nausea, and the wasting syndrome of many AIDS patients.
Last week, Attorney General Janet Reno -- who permanently wears Mr. Yuk Face
-- flouted democracy, announcing that doctors who prescribe marijuana will
still face federal prosecution.
Even though truly dangerous crap like cocaine, morphine, and Percodan is
perfectly legal to prescribe, Janet Reno says medical marijuana sends the
wrong message about drugs.
Messages? Hello?!?! Joe Camel is the most recognizable cartoon in America,
and -- watch carefully -- a single televised pro football game contains
nearly 100 ads for alcohol.
You want to save kids from drugs? Publicly denounce Jesse Helms and Dick
Gephardt as front men for Philip Morris and Anheuser Busch. Interrogate the
Commerce Department about subsidizing tobacco sales to third-world children.
Arrest any member of the Dallas Cowboys on sight.
Janet Reno should grill noted stoners Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Al Gore,
and Rush Limbaugh before screwing with the 60 million other Americans who
have tried pot -- or the doctors who want to use it to save dying people.
Banning medical marijuana doesn't send a message to children; it just sends
sick people to prison.
Can marijuana really be a medicine? Yup. It was first used as a pain
reliever in China over 5000 years ago, and herbalists in India have
prescribed it for headaches, insomnia, and nausea for at least 3000 years.
Its use in Europe extends all the way back to Galen and the ancient Greeks,
although it wasn't widespread until after Napoleon's troops returned from Egypt.
Between 1839 and 1940, cannabis was one of the most common pain relievers in
America. Over 100 medical journal articles recommended cannabis for various
conditions, and the drug was sold over-the-counter by Parke-Davis, Eli
Lilly, and Squibb. Only legislation subsequent to the Marijuana Tax Act of
1937, which had less to do with public health than protecting the paper and
synthetic textile markets from automated hemp production, curtailed
marijuana's legal medical use in the United States.
However, continuing clinical studies reported that marijuana can even be
used as a powerful antidepressant, anticonvulsive, and antibiotic. Illicit
medical use remained widespread.
Eventually, from 1976 to 1990, the U.S. government supplied over 160,000
marijuana cigarettes to about 50 glaucoma and cancer patients under the
Compassionate Investigative New Drug Program. The results were tremendously
encouraging, and in 1988, even the DEA's own administrative law judge wrote
that "marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically
active substances known."
So there you are.
The program was killed because, to be blunt, George Bush is evil.
In marijuana's place, the government approved Marinol --
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana's go juice, in pure form -- which the
drug industry (in which Bush was personally invested) can make a jillion
dollars from.
Trouble is, Marinol is often useless: patients who need THC precisely to
fight severe nausea tend to vomit the capsule.
Duh.
Marinol also has scary physical and psychoactive side effects, and an
overdose can kill. Window box pot is cheap, euphoric, and impossible to
overdose on.
So is medical marijuana just a trojan horse to legalize pot for recreational
use? No. It's about about saving lives.
Look, I smoked enough hemp in college to rig the U.S.S. Constitution, but I
stopped ten years ago. The cancer risk bugged me, I write better straight,
and it's nice to actually remember the lyrics to my favorite reggae songs.
However, before my own father died of chemotherapy last year, my family
watched him slowly wither as a result of severe nausea.
If Dad had wanted to light a joint so he could ease his pain and swallow a
solid meal, I would have gladly gotten him one.
So would you.
That's all this is about.
How many cancer specialists consider marijuana a useful medicine? 44 percent
of oncologists recently surveyed admitted to illegally recommending
marijuana at least once.
Your government consider these doctors criminals. I'm surprised Janet Reno
hasn't called out the BATF, sprayed flammable CS gas into Mt. Sinai, and
incinerated the cancer ward -- all in the name of saving the patients.
Bob Harris is a political humorist who has lectured at over 275 colleges
nationwide. He's also the co-author of the CD/ROM Encyclopedia of the JFK
Assassination.
* 'Lies Prevail In Case Against Marijuana'
'Sun-Sentinel' [Broward County, FL], Jan. 18, 1997
Editorial, by Bruce Mirken
The Clinton administration is telling lies about the medical use of
marijuana. On December 30 Clinton administration drug czar Gen. Barry
McCaffrey - a man with no medical training on his resume - stood before the
TV cameras and grimly told the American people that the laws passed by
California and Arizona voters allowing medical use of marijuana were "hoax
initiatives" that had nothing to do with helping sick people. Propositions
215 and 200 were nothing but a sinister backdoor attempt to legalize drugs,
the general told us.
Bruce Hunt knows better. He is taking one of those multidrug cocktails that
have given many AIDS patients such an astonishing boost. But the medicines
that are helping him fight the deadly virus also produce unbearable
gastrointestinal problems - nausea, diarrhea, cramps - and nothing that he
and his doctor have tried has helped. Nothing that is, except marijuana.
"Usually a puff or two will take care of it in minutes", Hunt says.
Without marijuana, he couldn't take the drugs that are keeping him alive.
With it, he has a shot at survival.
Hunt's situation is far from unique. Thousands of people suffering through
chemotherapy or taking potent anti-HIV drugs could tell the same story. But
in the paranoid fantasy world McCaffrey and the rest of the Clinton
administration's drug police inhabit, these people don't exist. Or maybe
they just don't count.
McCaffrey has told other whoppers, repeatedly insisting that "there is not a
shred of evidence that smoked marijuana is useful or needed." Wrong again.
In a 1988 study of cancer chemotherapy patients published in the 'New York
State Journal of Medicine,' Dr. Vincent Vinciguerra reported that 78 percent
of patients who had shown no improvement on standard anti-nausea drugs
"demonstrated a poistive response to marijuana."
Numerous other reports exist as well. In April 1995 the 'British Journal Of
Aneasthesia' commented, "In recent years data have accumulated which
supports a therapeutic effect of cannabis for nausea and vomiting caused by
chemotherapy for neoplastic disease (that is, cancer and related
conditions), spasticity and muscle spasms associated with spinal cord
lesions or multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma."
McCaffrey isn't the only administration official playing fast and loose with
the truth. Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala got into the
act: "All available medical research tells us that marijuana is dangerous to
our health."
In fact, there is overwhelming medical evidence that marijuana is far less
dangerous than many drugs that physicians routinely prescribe. Doctors are
allowed to prescribe drugs like morphine and cocaine that are highly
addictive and that can easily kill you if you take too much, but marijuana
is not physically addictive and no fatal marijuana overdose has ever been
recorded in medical literature. In a November 1995 editorial the prestigious
British medical journal 'The Lancet' stated flatly, "The smoking of
cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health."
Yes, it would be nice to have more data, and the government's promised
review of existing information - if it is conducted honestly - may be a
useful first step.
But if the government hadn't spent the last several years blocking the
efforts of scientists to study marijuana's therapeutic effects, we would
have that information already."
Bruce Mirken is a San Francisco-based freelance writer. Write to him at:
Progressive Media Project, 409 E. Main St., Madison, Wis. 53703.
* San Francisco Mayor Promises Treatment On Demand
"Mayor promises drug treatment on demand - Brown in D.C. for mayors confab"
'San Francisco Examiner,' Jan. 18, 1997, p. A1
By Rachel Gordon of The Examiner staff
WASHINGTON - Mayor Brown has vowed to include up to $20 million in his
upcoming budget to kick-start a treatment-on-demand program for San
Francisco's drug addicts and alcoholics, a move that won praise from
President Clinton's drug czar.
"It seems to me that the mayor of San Francisco is right on the money," said
Barry McCaffrey, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
"You simply cannot tell a person who finally decides to get help for their
addiction to come back in seven months. In order to be effective, (services)
need to be available when the people are ready."
McCaffrey said he was pressing the White House to help pay for such programs
in San Francisco and elsewhere around the nation.
San Francisco public health officials say the wait to enter a treatment
program in The City averages three months. Dr. Sandra Hernandez, Health
Department chief, said her goal was a 48-hour turnaround to get people
started on their road to recovery. The cost, however, won't be cheap.
Hernandez has estimated that $20 million would be needed to start a
comprehensive program, which would include residential and drop-in programs
and methadone maintenance services, among others.
Brown, in the nation's capital for the U.S. Conference of Mayors winter
meeting, said Friday he was ready to make the financial commitment.
"We will include treatment on demand in our budget," Brown said. The mayor's
staff is starting to draft the proposed budget for the Board of Supervisors'
consideration. The new fiscal year begins July 1.
Supervisor Susan Leal, who chairs the board's Finance Committee, is a chief
proponent of treatment on demand and is expected to help usher it through
the legislative process.
"I'm very, very supportive," Leal said Friday from San Francisco. Even with
other services and programs competing for funding from The City's $3
billion-plus annual budget, Leal added, "We're going to do everything we can
to put this in."
Saving money
Backers of the plan, which the Health Department actually is calling
"treatment as needed," said The City would save money in the long run. A
report last fall by board budget analyst Harvey Rose showed many indirect
city costs were attributed to substance abuse, such as police, prosecution,
court and coroner expenses. Those expenses reach about $20 million annually,
he estimated.
The Health Department spends $20 million for treatment, nearly $2 million
for outreach and prevention and $5 million for housing and other support
services. Authorities say an estimated 12,000 addicted San Franciscans
receive treatment, with another 1,400 or so awaiting help at any given time.
Health Department officials estimated two months ago that 45,000 residents
could use immediate substance-abuse treatment.
McCaffrey, at the conference of mayors meeting, said he expected the federal
government to help cities provide treatment services, and a request to do
just that is part of the president's 1998 budget plan. He said the creation
of more treatment programs should be a national goal, so cities such as San
Francisco didn't become magnets for addicts from all over.
"There is a state and federal responsibility to address this - not just
local," McCaffrey said.
But Brown said he isn't banking on new money from the feds at this point,
and would pay for treatment on demand in San Francisco with existing funds.
Brown said he hoped treatment on demand would help ease the homeless problem
in San Francisco. Homeless advocates and experts say many people on the
streets are addicted to drugs and alcohol, which make it much more difficult
for them to find permanent housing and jobs.
National debate
The extent of the nation's drug problem was made clear Friday as mayors from
San Francisco to Boise said their cities were suffering.
Gary, Ind., Mayor Scott King, who co-chairs the mayors' task force on drug
control, said city leaders had to start selling their constituents on the
need to invest in treatment programs and welcome them into their neighborhoods.
"One thing we have to do is get away from the notion that this is someone
else's problem," King said. "We have to get rid of the NIMBY,
not-in-my-backyard, attitude."
McCaffrey also used the discussion about drugs to again criticize the new,
voter-approved laws in California and Arizona decriminalizing the medicinal
use of marijuana.
"It's not good for American society to legalize marijuana," he said. But
rather than reject its use outright, McCaffrey said he was awaiting review
by the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration
about whether smoking marijuana helped patients with such ailments as
glaucoma and those suffering the effects of chemotherapy. Until then, he
said, "the federal law (outlawing marijuana use) is still operative."
McCaffrey's position didn't sit well with Hayward Mayor Roberta Cooper.
"We're not going to win the war on drugs by going after this," she said
after his remarks. "There's a concern by some that marijuana could become
too easily accessible, but there are people out there who are sick, and this
will give them some comfort. That's why I support it."
Cooper said her city hadn't taken any official action telling cops to keep
hands off pot smokers who got high to ease their pain.
* 'Potential Saint For Drug Sellers'
Laws prohibiting illicit drugs and the enforcing of them guarantee the
success of the traffickers' business, Ian Mathews writes.
Federal MP John Bradford is surely in the running to be the patron saint of
those eminently successful business people supplying illicit drugs to the
Australian market.
His call for the appointment of a US-style "Drug Czar" - his words - with
all the attendant centralisation and concentration fighting the "war against
drugs" must be music to the ears of the "drug-trafficking organisations".
The quotes are taken from his media statement titled "Australia needs a
federal drug coordinator", issued on his return from "a fact-finding mission
to the USA last week."
Quite apart from the dubious value of learning anything constructive about
illicit-drug management from the country which since 1910, has fought and
lost "wars against drugs", there should be real concern that Australia's
tentative successes in illicit-drug policy could be jeopardised by the
"Czarist" approach.
Mr. Bradford gleaned his "facts" from the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, headed by General Barry McCaffrey. He was briefed also by the Drug
Enforcement Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. And it
shows.
His media statement notes, "Australia does not have the same sense of
urgency in attacking the drug culture as does the United States of America."
He goes on to argue for "well-coordinated drug education, particularly
amongst young people". Changing a "culture", good or bad, is not one that
responds to a "sense of urgency" and "attack."
Rather, a culture changes because those involved are convinced by facts of a
need to change. It has taken some 30 years for the medical profession to
make some substantial inroads into the "culture" of tobacco-smoking - and
there is still a long way to go. But surely nobody would be foolish enough
to suggest a total ban on tobacco-smoking except where the practice is a
danger to others.
Mr. Bradford calls for a US-style peak authority which "controls the war
against drugs." Leaving aside the well-documented origins of "the war",
coined for an advertising campaign, the phrase and the concept of a war now
has a life of its own - and its very own commanding general.
It would be easy but quite wrong to suggest that a general cannot coordinate
a strategy against both a culture and a product, as General McCaffrey is
doing. However Mr Bradford does echo, in his press statement, the
inevitable military tone of the "war against drugs" which includes the goal
from the general's headquarters to "shield America's air, land and sea
frontiers from the drug threat."
Once again the siege mentality of prohibition seeks to blame foreigners for
all its woes. If only America could isolate itself from the rest of the
world, all would be well.
It is a strategy that conveniently overlooks the fact that for many years
marijuana was the economically lifesaving crop of many US farmers. Mr
Bradford repeats the US conventional wisdom that marijuana is a "gateway
drug", leading smokers to take up cocaine - as if beer-drinking inevitably
led to drinking whisky.
If marijuana is a "gateway drug" the reason is more likely to be economic or
peer challenge than a mythical addictive process. Because of prohibition,
illicit drugs are sold without any of the standards and regulations required
for other drugs or, indeed, any other consumable.
Thus contrived or artificial shortages of marijuana by a supplier can
readily translate into the introduction of a harder, and eventually more
expensive and addictive drug. This is the economics of supply and demand,
and has nothing to do with the properties of the drugs on sale.
There are three elements to what is described so glibly as the "drug problem."
One is certainly cultural in that in some societies, regardless of race or
income, there is a desire for mind-altering drugs. It has existed in our
own society for centuries and, despite the ravages of alcohol and tobacco,
we have constructed our society to accommodate the use of these drugs.
A second element is the deleterious effect on some people who become
dependent on drugs, both legal and illicit. This is a health problem which,
in Australia, is being tackled in several ways including by needle exchange,
methadone treatment, alcohol rehabilitation and anti-smoking campaigns.
The third element - and the one most ignored - is that the growing,
production and trafficking of illicit drugs is an economic activity,
guaranteed by prohibition. The trade is so lucrative - second only to the
world's arms trade - that no element of law enforcement is secure from
corruption. We hear the evidence almost daily.
Mr Bradford quotes President Clinton's inclusion of drug-traffickers in a
"nexus of new threats including terrorists, rogue states and international
criminals" as if this was a reason to increase prohibition.
The irony is that, according to the United Nations International Drug
Control Program, ready access to funds from illicit-drug trafficking
encourages terrorists and others to go into the drug trade to finance their
political aims and to buy arms.
Mr Bradford acknowledges the economic element of the trade by noting that
South-East Asia, and increasingly other sources, is the major supply of
heroin to the unrequited demand in the US. He fears better-quality cheaper
heroin will soon be available in Australia. The police could probably tell
him it already is on the streets.
Competition among suppliers for even a small piece of a boom market suggests
that "improved" products are an accepted marketing strategy.
Interrupting supplies to create a shortage, or dobbing in a rival to
minimise the competition, are part of the unregulated market encouraged by
prohibition.
The US Federal Government, according to Mr Bradford, has taken strong
counter-measures over legalisation initiatives in California and Arizona",
because loosening drug controls and relaxed attitudes cause drug use to
increase.
He is probably right: if something that was illegal is now legal, all those
who were taking drugs under cover can now do it openly. If pornographic
movies were legally available in Queensland would he watch them?
That is as unlikely as that he would take up drugs if they were legally
regulated and controlled. He would exercise the same degree of choice and
control as he exhibits now.
I had a similar experience to Mr Bradford when, in 1984 during the Reagan
Administration, I was exposed to the zeal of the US anti-drug administrators
in Washington. Prohibition, reduction of aid to supplier countries,
stringent law enforcement and slogan-type "education" were the weapons in
the war against drugs. All have failed.
I visited London on the same trip and asked a senior Home Office official
how Britain was tackling its drug problem. "What drug problem?" he asked,
but before I could wipe the look of incredulity from my face, he went on:
"Britain doesn't have a drug problem. It has a law problem."
He explained that laws - in this case prohibition, albeit less restrictive
than in the US - that failed to achieve their purpose brought the law into
disrepute. Prohibition and mobilisation in a war against drugs remain the
one element that assures the success of the illicit-drug trade.
No wonder if the illicit-drug entrepeneurs want Mr Bradford's campaign to
succeed.
Ian Mathews together with former Federal Court judge Russell Fox, is the
author of "Drugs Policy: Fact, Fiction and the Future," Federation Press,
Sydney, 1992.
John Bradford MP, is Chairman of the Watchdog Committee on the National
Crime Authority.
* Pennsylvania Jail Guards Face Firing Over Drugs
"Bucks jail guards face firing over drugs"
'The Philadelphia Inquirer,' Jan. 22, 1997
By Erin Einhorn, Inquirer correspondent
Two Bucks County Prison guards have been suspended without pay and face
dismissal on charges that they supplied inmates with illicit drugs.
After an administrative hearing late last week, the jail determined there
was enough evidence to turn the guards over to the county's personnel
department, which makes hiring and firing decisions, Warden Al Nesbitt said
yesterday.
The prison would not name the officers, Nesbitt said. They were suspended
with pay in September following a drug raid. After last week's hearing,
their salaries were stopped.
The union that represents prison officers has challenged the suspension,
saying the only evidence against the guards is an inmate's accusation.
"It's all hearsay," said Richard Batezel Jr., the union's chief steward.
"No staff members have seen anything. All they have is inmate testimony and
a polygraph."
One prison officer filed a statement with the union that stated the inmate
had admitted inventing the drug-supply story to retaliate against a guard.
"Inmates are used to deceiving and lying," Batezel said. "They're trying to
shed blame from themselves onto an officer."
But Nesbitt dismissed the suggestion. There have been several officers
accused by inmates of supplying them with drugs, he said, but
investigations proved most of the accusations were baseless.
That was not the case with these two guards, he said.
"That is one of the reasons the investigation has taken so long. We were
sorting through the dark alleyways of accusation and innuendo," he said.
There have been no criminal charges filed against the two prison guards,
Nesbitt said, but he has turned his information over to the District
Attorney's Office.
Random drug tests in the prison show that drug use is common in the jail,
officials say.
In some cases, inmates manage to swallow a balloon filled with drugs while
kissing or hugging a visitor. In other cases, drugs are thrown over the
prison walls, hidden in one of the handballs that inmates play with in the
prison yard.
Last month, Nesbitt said, the jail had to reassign the duty of cleaning the
visitors' bathrooms when it was learned that some visitors were hiding
drugs there.
[End]
Please send comments, corrections or contributions to:
Phil Smith
samizdat@pdxnorml.org
Assistant Director
Portland chapter, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
(Portland NORML)
volunteer, Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet)
P.O. Box 9192
Portland, OR 97207
Past news releases and megabytes of other information on cannabis and drug
policy are posted in Portland NORML's World Wide Web pages at
http://www.pdxnorml.org/
Reporters and researchers are also welcome at the world's largest online
library of drug policy information, sponsored by The Drug Reform
Coordination Network at http://www.druglibrary.org
This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/012397.txt